L\Epttbltc of Tbe Ibilippine~ ~Upreme 'Ourt :Manila
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
l\epttbltc of tbe ibilippine~ ~upreme 'ourt :manila FIRST DIVISION SPOUSES DIONISIO ESTRADA G.R. No. 203902 and JOVITA R. ESTRADA, Petitioners, Present: SERENO, C.J, Chairperson, -versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, DEL CASTILLO, PERLAS-BERNABE, and CAGUIOA,JJ PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. and EDUARDO R. SAYLAN, Respondents. x--------------------------------------------- DECISION DEL CASTILLO, J.: The Court restates in this petition two principles on the grant of damages. First, moral damages, as a general rule, are not recoverable in an action for damages predicated on breach of contract. 1 Second, temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded where earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured party's actual income.2 This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the May 16, 2012 Decision3 and October 1, 2012 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 95520, which partially granted the appeal filed therewith by respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Philippine Rabbit) and denied petitioners spouses Dionisio C. Estrada JPionisio) and Jovita R. Estrada's motion for reconsideration thereto. ~d/Y Japan Arilines v. Simungan, 575 Phil. 359, 375 (2008). 2 Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., 654 Phil. 443, 457 (201 1). CA rollo, pp. 68-75; penned by Associate Justic..; Fiorito S. Macalino and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fenrnndo and Ramon M. B::ito, Jr. 4 Id. at 91-92. ., ....... ·' Decision 2 G.R. No. 203902 Factual Antecedents On April 13, 2004, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, a Complaint5 for Damages against Philippine Rabbit and respondent Eduardo R. Saylan (Eduardo). The facts as succinctly summarized by the RTC are as follows: [A] mishap occurred on April 9, 2002 along the national highway in Barangay Alipangpang, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, between the passenger bus with plate number CVK-964 and body number 3101, driven by [respondent] Eduardo Saylan and owned by [respondent] Philippine Rabbit Bus, Lines, Inc., and the Isuzu truck with plate number UPB-974 driven by Willy U. Urez and registered in the nan1e of Rogelio Cuyton, Jr.. At the time of the incident, the Philippine Rabbit Bus was going towards the north direction, while the Isuzu truck was travelling towards the south direction. The collision happened at the left lane or the lane properly belonging to the Isuzu truck. The right front portion of the Isuzu Truck appears to have collided with the right side portion of the body of the Philippine Rabbit bus. x x x Before the collision, the bus was following closely a jeepney. When the jeepney stopped, the bus suddenly swerved to the left encroaching upon the rightful lane of the Isuzu truck, which resulted in the collision of the two (2) vehicles. x x x The [petitioner] Dionisio Estrada, who was an1ong the passengers of the Philippine Rabbit bus, as evidenced by the ticket issued to him, was injured on the [right] arm as a consequence of the accident. His injured right arm was amputated at the Villaflor Medical Doctor's Hospital in Dagupan City xx x. For the treatment of his injury, he incurred expenses as evidenced by xx x various receipts.6 Dionisio argued that pursuant to the contract of carriage between him and Philippine Rabbit, respondents were duty-bound to carry him safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, with utmost diligence of a very cautious person, and with due regard for all the circumstances from the point of his origin in Urdaneta City to his destination in Pugo, La Union. However, through the fault and negligence of Philippine Rabbit's driver, Eduardo, and without human care, foresight, and due regard for all circumstances, respondents failed to transport him safely by reason of the aforementioned collision which resulted in the amputation of Dionisio's right ami. And since demands for Philippine Rabbit7 to pay him damages for the injury he sustained remained unheeded, Dionisio filed the said complaint wherein he prayed for the following awards: moral damages of P500,000.Q.2,_n 9 actual damages of!"60,000.00, and attorney's fees ofl"25,000.00. /o-- 5 Records, pp. 2-5. 6 Id.at351-352. 7 Id. at 8-9. Decision 3 G.R. No. 203902 Petitioners' claim for moral damages, in particular, was based on the following allegations: 9. [The] amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages for the amputation of [Dionisio's] right arm for life including his moral sufferings for such [loss] of right arm is reasonable. Said amount is computed and derived using the formula (2/3 x [80- age of the complainant when the injury is sustained] = life expectancy) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality. From such formula, [Dionisio] is expected to live for 18 years, which is equivalent [to] about 6570 days. For each day, [Dionisio] is claiming P80.00 as he is expected to work for 8 hours a day with his amputated arm or to enjoy the same for at least 8 hours a day (or is claiming Pl0.00 for each hour) for 18 years (6570 days). The amount that can be computed thereof would be P525,600.00 (6570 days x P80.00). [Dionisio] then [rounded] it off to PS00,000.00, the moral damages consisted [of] his moral sufferings due to the [loss] of his right arm for life; 8 Denying any liability, Philippine Rabbit in its Answer9 averred that it carried Dionisio safely as far as human care and foresight could provide with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person and with due regard for all the circumstances prevailing. While it did not contest that its bus figured in an accident, Philippine Rabbit nevertheless argued that the cause thereof was an extraordinary circumstance independent of its driver's action or a fortuitous event. Hence, it claimed to be exempt from any liability arising therefrom. In any case, Philippine Rabbit averred that it was the Isuzu truck coming from the opposite direction which had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap. Instead of slowing down upon seeing the bus, the said truck continued its speed such that it bumped into the right side of the bus. The proximate cause of the accident, therefore, was the wrongful and negligent manner in which the Isuzu truck was operated by its driver. In view of this, Philippine Rabbit believed that Dionisio has no cause of action against it. With respect to Eduardo, he was declared in default after he failed to file an Answer despite due notice. 10 Ruling of the Regional Trial Court Treating petitioners' Complaint for damages as one predicated o~*" Id. at 3-4. 9 Id. at 54-57. 10 Id.at43. Decision 4 G.R. No. 203902 breach of contract of carriage, the RTC rendered its Decision 11 on December 1, 2009. In concluding that Eduardo was negligent in driving the Philippine Rabbit bus, the said court ratiocinated, viz.: Evidently, prior to the accident, [Eduardo] was tailgating the jeepney ahead of him. When the jeepney stopped, [Eduardo] suddenly swerved the bus to the left, encroaching in the process the rightful lane of the oncoming Isuzu truck, thereby resulting in the collision. The fact that [Eduardo] did not apply the brakes, but instead swerved to the other lane, fairly suggests that he was not only unnecessarily close to the jeepney, but that he was operating the bus at a speed greater than what was reasonably necessary for him to be able to bring his vehicle to a full stop to avoid hitting the vehicle he was then following. Clearly, immediately before the collision, [Eduardo] was actually violating Section 35 of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, Republic Act No. 4136, as amended: Sec. 35. Restriction as to speed. - (a) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed, not greater nor less than [what] is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, the width of the highway, and or any other condition then and there existing; and no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb and property of any person, nor at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the clear distance ahead. Too, when [Eduardo] swerved to the left and encroached on the rightful lane of the Isuzu truck, he was violating Section 41 of the same Traffic Code: Sec. 41. Restriction on overtaking and passing. - (a) The driver of a vehicle shall not drive to the left side of the center line of a highway in overtaking or passing another vehicle, proceeding in the same direction, unless such left side is clearly visible, and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking or passing to be made in safety. The fact that the collision occurred immediately after the bus swerved on the left lane clearly [indicates] that the other lane was not clear and free of oncoming vehicle at the time x x x [Eduardo] tried to overtake the jeepney to avoid hitting it. It is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation, unless there is proof to the contrary (Article 2185 of the Ci~~ ~ /ff Code). [Eduardo] failed to rebut this legal presumption as he chose not ~~, ~ · II Id.